Traditionally, psychology has avoided studying anything that is
loaded
with value judgements. There is a degree of difficulty involved
in
trying to be unbiased about things that involve terms like "good" and
"bad!"
So, one of the most significant aspects of human life - morality -
has
had to wait quite a while before anyone in psychology dared to touch
it!
But Lawrence Kohlberg wanted to study morality, and did so using a most
interesting (if controversial) technique. Basically, he
would ask children and adults to try to solve moral dilemmas contained
in little stories, and to do so outloud so he could follow their
reasoning.
It wasn't the specific answers to the dilemmas that interested him, but
rather how the person got to his or her answer.

One of the most famous of these stories concerned a man named
Heinz.
His wife was dying of a disease that could be cured if he could get a
certain
medicine. When he asked the pharmacist, he was told that he could
get the medicine, but only at a very high price - one that Heinz could
not possibly afford. So the next evening, Heinz broke into the
pharmacy
and stole the drug to save his wife's life. Was Heinz right or
wrong
to steal the drug?

There are simple reasons why Heinz should or should not have stolen
the drug, and there are very sophisticated reasons, and reasons in
between.
After looking at hundreds of interviews using this and several
other
stories, Kohlberg outlined three broad levels and six more specific
stages
of moral development.

Level I: Pre-conventional morality. While
infants
are essentially amoral, very young children are moral in a rather
primitive
way, as described by the two preconventional stages.

Stage 1. We can call this the reward and
punishment
stage. Good or bad depends on the physical consequences:
Does
the action lead to punishment or reward? This stage is based
simply
on one's own pain and pleasure, and doesn't take others into account.

Stage 2. This we can call the exchange stage.
In
this stage, there is increased recognition that others have their own
interests
and should be taken into account. Those interests are still
understood
in a very concrete fashion, and the child deals with others in
terms
of simple exchange or reciprocity: "I'll scratch your back if you
scratch mine." Children in this stage are very concerned with
what's
"fair" (one of their favorite words), but are not concerned with real
justice.

Level II: Conventional morality. By the time
children
enter elementary school, they are usually capable of conventional
morality,
although they may often slip back into preconventional morality on
occasion.
But this level is called conventional for a very good reason: It
is also the level that most adults find themselves in most of the time!

Stage 3. This stage is often called the good
boy/good
girl stage. The child tries to live up to the expectations of
others, and to seek their approval. Now they become interested
motives
or intentions, and concepts such as loyalty, trust, and gratitude are
understood.
Children in this stage often adhere to a concrete version of the Golden
Rule, although it is limited to the people they actually deal with on a
day-to-day basis.

Stage 4. This is called the law-and-order
stage.
Children now take the point of view that includes the social system as
a whole. The rules of the society are the bases for right and
wrong,
and doing one's duty and showing respect for authority are important.

Level III: Post-conventional morality. Some
adolescents
and adults go a step further and rise above moralities based on
authority
to ones based on reason.

Stage 5. The social contract stage means
being
aware of the degree to which much of so-called morality is relative to
the individual and to the social group they belong to, and that only a
very few fundamental values are universal. The person at this
level
sees morality as a matter of entering into a rational contract with
one's
fellow human beings to be kind to each other, respect authority, and
follow
laws to the extent that they respect and promote those universal
values.
Social contract morality often involves a utilitarian approach, where
the
relative value of an act is determined by "the greatest good for the
greatest
number."

Stage 6. This stage is referred to as the stage of universal
principles. At this point, the person makes a personal
commitment
to universal principles of equal rights and respect, and social
contract
takes a clear back-seat: If there is a conflict between a social
law or custom and universal principles, the universal principles take
precedence.

Kohlberg's original work was done with boys. When the research
began to include girls, they found the girls to be less morally
"developed" than the boys! Psychologist Carol Gilligan, involved
in that research, began to notice that it wasn't so easy to distinguish
"good boy/good girl" from "universal principles", especially in the
girls. Since then, psychologists have readjusted their work to take
into account for the fact that girls often express their morality in
terms that emphasize personal caring more than abstract principles.

Bronfenbrenner's Theory

Another psychologist unafraid to tackle morallity was Urie
Bronfenbrenner.
He is famous for his studies of children and schools in different
cultures.
He outlines five moral orientations:

1. Self-oriented morality. This is
analogous
to Kohlberg's pre-conventional morality. Basically, the child is
only interested in self-gratification and only considers others to the
extent that they can help him get what he wants, or hinder him.

The next three orientations are all forms of what Kohlberg called
conventional
morality:

2. Authority-oriented morality. Here,
the
child, or adult, basically accepts the decrees of authority figures,
from
parents up to heads of state and religion, as defining good and bad.

3. Peer-oriented morality. This is basically a
morality
of conformity, where right and wrong is determined not by authority but
by one's peers. In western society, this kind of morality is
frequently
found among adolescents, as well as many adults.

4. Collective-oriented morality. In this
orientation,
the standing goals of the group to which the child or adult belongs
over-ride
individual interests. Duty to one's group or society is paramount.

The last orientation is analogous to Kohlberg's post-conventional
level:

5. Objectively oriented morality. By
objectively,
Bronfenbrenner means universal principles that are objective in the
sense
that they do not depend on the whims of individuals or social groups,
but
have a reality all their own.

Bronfenbrenner noted that while 1 is found among children (and some
adults)
in all cultures, 6 is found in relatively few people in any
culture.
The differences between 2, 3, and 4 are more a matter of culture than
of
development. Many cultures promote strict obedience to authority
figures. One can see this in very conservative cultures, where
the word of the religious authorities is law. In many modern
cultures,
conformity to one's peers is a powerful force. And in others
still, the welfare of the collective group is considered far
more important than that of the individual.

Bronfenbrenner also talks about how we get movement from one
orientation
to another. The movement from 1 to 2, 3, or 4 involves
participation
in the family and other social structures, where concern for others
begins
to take precedent over concern for oneself.

Movement from 2, 3, or 4 to 5 occurs when a person is exposed to a
number
of different moral systems which at least partially conflict with each
other, a situation he calls moral pluralism.
This forces
the
person to begin to think about what might lie beneath all the
variation,
and lead him or her to consider ultimate moral principles.
Gaining a broader experience of the variety of people in the world, for
example, tends to advance one's moral thinking.

On the other hand, sometimes people slide back down to the lowest
orientation
when they suffer from the disintegration of social structures, as in
war
and other social disasters. This can force a person's attentions
back onto their own needs, and cause them to begin ignoring the welfare
of larger social groupings.